Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Haircrow

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Haircrow

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorially-tinged WP:BLP of a writer, whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. Out of 28 references here, not a single one represents reliable source coverage about him -- every single footnote is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, a piece of his own bylined writing about other things, a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something other than him, a WordPress, Blogspot or LiveJournal blog, or a primary source. And even the literary awards he's won are not major ones that constitute a WP:AUTHOR pass -- they're minor ones that can be sourced only to their own self-published websites. But the question of whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it hinges not on verification that the award exists, but on media caring enough about it to report its winners as news. Writers, as always, are not automatically notable just because their own writings and other primary sources provide technical verification that they exist -- the notability test for a writer is not the degree to which he has been the creator of content about other things, but the degree to which he has been the subject of journalism about him created by other people, and not a single source here offers any such thing. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was "Contributingauthor" and the overwhelming majority of their entire Wikipedia edit history has been to this article itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly self-promotional. User:Contributingauthor created this article, added to it in subsequent years, and that is pretty much the extent of her/his involvement with Wikipedia. Contributingauthor might be a publicist, if not be the author himself, but has a blatant conflict of interest. Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

- Delete conflict of interest is pretty obvious. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that an article so clearly about a non-notable individual has existed for 6 years is a sad commentary on control here at Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.